Krauthammer dismissed the controversy and noted the timing of the allegations of the effort to open communications, which are said to have happened during the transition and not the campaign.
“I don’t trust this story,” Krauthammer said.
“The Russians are leaking it clearly on a channel they know we’re going to pick up. The Russians are masters of disinformation. They already have Washington with its knickers in a twist with a Russian conspiracy. This is an added twist. Somebody’s going to get a hernia here. I think I’ll stop the metaphor with that point. But we have no idea if it’s true. Let’s say it is true. Isn’t the problem here, the accusation here that there was some collusion during the campaign with the Russians? Well, everyone agrees if the story is true, it occurred after the campaign during the transition. So, unless there’s some sort of nefarious connection here, there’s no connection to what was alleged to have happened during the campaign.”
“And lastly, we’ve had backchannel connections with adversaries for generations,” he added. “Henry Kissinger had them with the Russians and the Chinese. Hillary had a backchannel to establish the opening with the Iranians in what ended up as the opening in what ended up as the Iranian nuclear deal … This happens all the time. I don’t quite understand where is the crime other than it is another piece that has Russia in the headline, Trump people in the headline and thus, it is supposed to be scandalous. Show me.”
“I don’t trust this story,” Krauthammer said.
“The Russians are leaking it clearly on a channel they know we’re going to pick up. The Russians are masters of disinformation. They already have Washington with its knickers in a twist with a Russian conspiracy. This is an added twist. Somebody’s going to get a hernia here. I think I’ll stop the metaphor with that point. But we have no idea if it’s true. Let’s say it is true. Isn’t the problem here, the accusation here that there was some collusion during the campaign with the Russians? Well, everyone agrees if the story is true, it occurred after the campaign during the transition. So, unless there’s some sort of nefarious connection here, there’s no connection to what was alleged to have happened during the campaign.”
“And lastly, we’ve had backchannel connections with adversaries for generations,” he added. “Henry Kissinger had them with the Russians and the Chinese. Hillary had a backchannel to establish the opening with the Iranians in what ended up as the opening in what ended up as the Iranian nuclear deal … This happens all the time. I don’t quite understand where is the crime other than it is another piece that has Russia in the headline, Trump people in the headline and thus, it is supposed to be scandalous. Show me.”
[FONT="]‘I Don’t Trust This Story’: Charles Krauthammer on Jared Kushner-Russia Reports[/FONT]
[FONT="]Published on 29 May 2017[/FONT]
[FONT="]On Fox News’ Special Report tonight, Charles Krauthammer sided with Lindsey Graham‘s serious skepticism with the reporting about Jared Kushner allegedly wanting to set up a secret communications channel with the Kremlin.
“I don’t trust this story,” he said. “The Russians are leaking it clearly on a channel they know we’re gonna pick up. The Russians are masters of disinformation.”
If it is true, Krauthammer added, “it occurred after the campaign, during the transition. So unless there’s some nefarious connection here, there’s no connection to what was alleged to have happened during the campaign.”
He doesn’t see the crime here, just that this is “another piece that has Russia in the headline, Trump people in the headline, and thus is supposed to be scandalous.”
Watch above, via Fox News.
[/FONT]
[FONT="]Published on 29 May 2017[/FONT]
[FONT="]On Fox News’ Special Report tonight, Charles Krauthammer sided with Lindsey Graham‘s serious skepticism with the reporting about Jared Kushner allegedly wanting to set up a secret communications channel with the Kremlin.
“I don’t trust this story,” he said. “The Russians are leaking it clearly on a channel they know we’re gonna pick up. The Russians are masters of disinformation.”
If it is true, Krauthammer added, “it occurred after the campaign, during the transition. So unless there’s some nefarious connection here, there’s no connection to what was alleged to have happened during the campaign.”
He doesn’t see the crime here, just that this is “another piece that has Russia in the headline, Trump people in the headline, and thus is supposed to be scandalous.”
Watch above, via Fox News.
[/FONT]
President Donald Trump's top counselor, Kellyanne Conway, on Tuesday dismissed the importance of recent reports that senior adviser Jared Kushner attempted to create a secret line of communications with Russia during the presidential transition last year.
In an interview on "Fox and Friends," Conway pointed to comments from national security adviser H.R. McMaster and Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly, who said they weren't concerned about Kushner's reported request to conduct the communications using Russian gear that could not be intercepted by the US or other intelligence services.
"Back channels like this are the regular course of business, and that’s really all that we know," Conway said. "I think it’s very important to recognize that the president has expressed full confidence in Jared Kushner and also went on to note the considerable progress and very large important portfolio that Jared oversees here at the White House."
Conway said "he’ll be fully cooperative with any information that he has.”
[h=1]McMaster says 'not concerned' after Kushner back-channel reports[/h]
Asked about reports that Donald Trump's son-in-law had tried to set up a secret channel of communication with Russia before the president took office, U.S. National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster said that so-called "back-channeling" was normal.
Asked about reports that Donald Trump's son-in-law had tried to set up a secret channel of communication with Russia before the president took office, U.S. National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster said that so-called "back-channeling" was normal.
[h=1]Homeland security secretary Kelly: 'I don't see any big issue' in Kushner-Russia back-channel[/h]
"I know Jared. He's a great guy, decent guy," Kelly told NBC's Chuck Todd on "Meet The Press."
"His number one, number one interest, really, is the nation. So you know there's a lot of different ways to communicate, back-channel, publicly with other countries," Kelly said. "I don't see any big issue here relative to Jared."
"I know Jared. He's a great guy, decent guy," Kelly told NBC's Chuck Todd on "Meet The Press."
"His number one, number one interest, really, is the nation. So you know there's a lot of different ways to communicate, back-channel, publicly with other countries," Kelly said. "I don't see any big issue here relative to Jared."
No nation on Earth seeks 'world domination' as such a notion on a planet with over 7billion people is absurd at all levels.
Russia may well seek to control oil and water resources within Central and Southwest Asia but neither have the means or resources to control anywhere outside Asia or at best small portions of far Eastern Europe.
Even with financial blackmail against little donnie their longterm impact on U.S. actions is minimal.
Russia may well seek to control oil and water resources within Central and Southwest Asia but neither have the means or resources to control anywhere outside Asia or at best small portions of far Eastern Europe.
Even with financial blackmail against little donnie their longterm impact on U.S. actions is minimal.
[FONT="]For Immediate Release
[/FONT]
[h=1]Daily Press Briefing by Press Secretary Sean Spicer -- #51[/h]
[FONT="]Phil.[/FONT]
[FONT="]Q Yes, so the issue with the Russia probe, I'm wondering, Sean, if you can tell us when the President knew --whether the President knew at the time that Jared Kushner was seeking to establish back-channel communications at the Russian embassy through the Russian government. And if he didn’t know at the time, when did he find out?[/FONT]
[FONT="]MR. SPICER: I think that assumes a lot. And I would just say that Mr. Kushner’s attorney has said that Mr. Kushner has volunteered to share with Congress what he knows about these meetings, and he will do the same if he’s contacted in or -- and connected with any other inquiry.[/FONT]
[FONT="]Q Did the President discuss this, though?[/FONT]
[FONT="]MR. SPICER: I'm not going to get into what the President did or did not discuss. But what your question assumes is a lot of facts that are not substantiated by anything but anonymous sources that are, so far, being leaked out.[/FONT]
[FONT="]Q Does he approve of that action?[/FONT]
[FONT="]MR. SPICER: You're asking if he approves of an action that is not a confirmed action. That being said, I think Secretary Kelly and General McMaster have both discussed that, in general terms, back channels are an appropriate part of diplomacy.[/FONT]
[FONT="]Q Does the White House dispute that that happened?[/FONT]
[FONT="]MR. SPICER: I'm not going to get into -- but your question presupposes facts that have not been confirmed.[/FONT]
May 30, 2017
[/FONT]
[h=1]Daily Press Briefing by Press Secretary Sean Spicer -- #51[/h]
[FONT="]Phil.[/FONT]
[FONT="]Q Yes, so the issue with the Russia probe, I'm wondering, Sean, if you can tell us when the President knew --whether the President knew at the time that Jared Kushner was seeking to establish back-channel communications at the Russian embassy through the Russian government. And if he didn’t know at the time, when did he find out?[/FONT]
[FONT="]MR. SPICER: I think that assumes a lot. And I would just say that Mr. Kushner’s attorney has said that Mr. Kushner has volunteered to share with Congress what he knows about these meetings, and he will do the same if he’s contacted in or -- and connected with any other inquiry.[/FONT]
[FONT="]Q Did the President discuss this, though?[/FONT]
[FONT="]MR. SPICER: I'm not going to get into what the President did or did not discuss. But what your question assumes is a lot of facts that are not substantiated by anything but anonymous sources that are, so far, being leaked out.[/FONT]
[FONT="]Q Does he approve of that action?[/FONT]
[FONT="]MR. SPICER: You're asking if he approves of an action that is not a confirmed action. That being said, I think Secretary Kelly and General McMaster have both discussed that, in general terms, back channels are an appropriate part of diplomacy.[/FONT]
[FONT="]Q Does the White House dispute that that happened?[/FONT]
[FONT="]MR. SPICER: I'm not going to get into -- but your question presupposes facts that have not been confirmed.[/FONT]
[FONT="]Francesca. [/FONT]
[FONT="]Q Thank you, Sean. But the President retweeted this morning an article about that back channel that was based on an anonymous source that said that there was an effort to set up a back channel, that it was the Russians who suggested that, and that it was to talk about Syria. Was the President not confirming that that effort -- that there was an effort in the facts that I just said when he retweeted that? [/FONT]
[FONT="]MR. SPICER: I think what I just said speaks for itself. [/FONT]
[FONT="]Q But he was -- but you said that, first of all, that the article was based on anonymous sources --[/FONT]
[FONT="]MR. SPICER: Which it is.[/FONT]
[FONT="]Q But the Fox article that the President retweeted was also based on anonymous sources. Why are those sources -- or the source, rather, that they used more credible than the one in The Washington Post article?[/FONT]
[FONT="]MR. SPICER: Again, I don't think -- there’s two issues at hand. One is the statement that Jared’s attorney has provided. Second is whether or not -- the dossier that's largely the basis of this was largely discredited in the first place. Most of the publications here refused to even publish it in the first place. So, again, I'm not going to get into confirming stuff. There’s an ongoing investigation.[/FONT]
[FONT="]Q Thank you, Sean. But the President retweeted this morning an article about that back channel that was based on an anonymous source that said that there was an effort to set up a back channel, that it was the Russians who suggested that, and that it was to talk about Syria. Was the President not confirming that that effort -- that there was an effort in the facts that I just said when he retweeted that? [/FONT]
[FONT="]MR. SPICER: I think what I just said speaks for itself. [/FONT]
[FONT="]Q But he was -- but you said that, first of all, that the article was based on anonymous sources --[/FONT]
[FONT="]MR. SPICER: Which it is.[/FONT]
[FONT="]Q But the Fox article that the President retweeted was also based on anonymous sources. Why are those sources -- or the source, rather, that they used more credible than the one in The Washington Post article?[/FONT]
[FONT="]MR. SPICER: Again, I don't think -- there’s two issues at hand. One is the statement that Jared’s attorney has provided. Second is whether or not -- the dossier that's largely the basis of this was largely discredited in the first place. Most of the publications here refused to even publish it in the first place. So, again, I'm not going to get into confirming stuff. There’s an ongoing investigation.[/FONT]
+4
DO AS I SAY NOT AS I DO: Trump on Sunday said the stories that use anonymous sources are 'fake' and it's 'very possible' the people journalists say they are quoting do not exist. His tweet on Tuesday endorsing a Fox article that used one defending Jared Kushner flew in the face of that claim
And you're far too lazy to take the time to explain why.
I'll explain. Russia, like global jihadis will do everything in their power with nefarious intent and no care for the body count to gain power, territory, and influence. They are a force for evil in the world, and will remain so until their dictatorship comes to an end. They are a barbaric dictatorship led by a terrorist and like many of his predecessors, a mass murderer running a murder machine.
Donald J. TrumpVerified account @realDonaldTrump 14m14 minutes agoMore
...case against him & now wants to clear his name by showing "the false or misleading testimony by James Comey, John Brennan..." Witch Hunt!
1,828 replies .1,247 retweets4,479 likes
Reply
1.8K
Retweet
1.2K
Like
4.5K
Direct message
-
Donald J. TrumpVerified account @realDonaldTrump 21m21 minutes agoMore
So now it is reported that the Democrats, who have excoriated Carter Page about Russia, don't want him to testify. He blows away their....
I don't think Putin is the equivalent of Stalin, I don't think the Russian people would ever go back to those dark ages.
I also believe Russia is much more engaged in global commerce.
and since they're a sovereign nation, they'll never be actual terrorists, they're actually victims of terrorism
I don't like your analogy scottstein. I also believe Jews can live freely and at peace in Russia, and they have the freedom to leave.
I also believe Russia is much more engaged in global commerce.
and since they're a sovereign nation, they'll never be actual terrorists, they're actually victims of terrorism
I don't like your analogy scottstein. I also believe Jews can live freely and at peace in Russia, and they have the freedom to leave.
To date, there has been no independent verification the letter is real or that WaPo’s description of its contents is accurate. The Washington Post editors also never explain why they withheld the letter.
The Daily Caller News Foundation’s Investigative Group contacted The Post’s national desk over the weekend, seeking a copy of the letter and an explanation why their editors withheld it from the public. WaPo did not reply to either TheDCNF’s email or phone inquiries.
The question is, what is The Washington Post hiding?
The story is weakened further since its reporters only cite unnamed government officials to confirm the anonymous letter’s charges.
====
This is one of the dumbest "stories" ever.
The Daily Caller News Foundation’s Investigative Group contacted The Post’s national desk over the weekend, seeking a copy of the letter and an explanation why their editors withheld it from the public. WaPo did not reply to either TheDCNF’s email or phone inquiries.
The question is, what is The Washington Post hiding?
The story is weakened further since its reporters only cite unnamed government officials to confirm the anonymous letter’s charges.
====
This is one of the dumbest "stories" ever.
